 |
[Vor...] stand member. Notwithstanding the position which he held,
however, the evidence does not conclusively connect him by any individual
personal action on his part with the acts of spoliation in Poland,
Alsace-Lorraine, or Russia. It is true that he presided at meetings of the
Vorstand and frequently attended other Farben meetings, including those of the
Commercial Committee, at which discussions were held, reports were made, action
was planned and approved. But examination of the minutes and reports of the
meetings fails to disclose anything incriminating as against Schmitz with
regard to the mentioned transactions. The evidence, in general, is similar to
that relied upon with reference to the other members of the Vorstand. In this
respect time evidence is equally consistent with inferences that the
acquisitions might have been effected in a legal manner. We are not convinced
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant Schmitz in connection
with Farben’s spoliative activities in Poland or Alsace-Lorraine.
In the matter of the Francolor acquisition, the evidence has been
presented on a different basis. Schmitz received minutes of the Wiesbaden
meetings, and the evidence further establishes that he was continuously advised
of the course of negotiations throughout the various conferences. The
information coming to his attention in this manner was sufficient to apprise
him of the pressure tactics being employed to force the French to consent to
Farben's majority participation in the French dyestuffs industry. He was in a
position to influence policy and effectively to alter the course of events. We,
therefore, find that Schmitz bore a responsibility for, and knew of, Farben's
program to take part in the spoliation of the French dyestuffs industry and,
with this knowledge, expressly and impliedly authorized and approved it.
Schmitz must be held Guilty on this aspect of count two of the indictment.
In the case of spoliation in Norway, the evidence establishes that
Schmitz, in his capacity as chairman of the Vorstand, had special knowledge of
the entire project. He received a letter from the defendant Buergin
recommending Farben’s participation in the project, and such participation
was later actually carried out. This could not have been done without his
knowledge and approval. Possessing special knowledge of the project, he
attended the meeting of the Vorstand on 5 February 1941, at which participation
in the Nordisk-Lettmetall project was approved in principle. Reports of
conferences with Reich authorities were made to Schmitz. He participated in at
least one of these conferences at which there was discussion regarding the
steps to be taken in the acquisition of the Norsk-Hydro shares by the German
group. He served as a member of the Styre, or governing board, of Norsk-Hydro,
both prior to and subsequent to the increase in capitalization. We conclude
that Schmitz was fully |
1155 |
. 
